I didn't realise Freindly Fire was on in this game until I swung my bardiche enthusiastically and decapitated two of my team mates.
The best part is running into a bunch of greedy polearm users from the opposing team, then suddenly turning away (bonus points if you duck instead) only to see them start swinging and killing their own team mates, coming back and finishing them off one by one.Oh man, you should see all the noobs teamkilling because all they can do is press LMB repeatedly. It is quite funny. I used to play Man at Arms and died more to those 'swingers' than anything else.
Is there a reasonably good SP included, or is it purely MP?
So, is it worth it? I expect it to be laggy as fuck due to my untermensch connection, so I probably shouldn't bother... but I've been following the team ever since I've heard of this game. Memories of MP sessions in Dark Messiah are far too good.http://www.greenmangaming.com/s/us/en/pc/games/shooter/chivalry-medieval-warfare/ $12.50 sale price + WINTR-SRVEY-42012 = $8.12ish.
Free weekend going on now at Steam. Tried it for about an hour or so and fairly underwhelmed. It's pretty much what I thought it would be: Warband multiplayer with a bit more polish, classes, weapons, and siege. Overall, though, not worth an independent purchase, not even on sale. If you already have Warband just play the multiplayer in that. If you don't and think you might be interested in Chivalry... just buy Warband. You'll get fundamentally the same multiplayer experience plus a sandbox style single player, too.
I've played a fair bit of both and totally disagree with the statement that M&B and Chivalry are fundamentally the same. They're both pseudo-medieval multiplayer games but that's just about where the similarities end. I strongly prefer Chivalry as well.
The controls aren't unresponsive, it's more that your attacks are slower and you have to commit to them after the windup ends, whereas in M&B you can chamber attacks allowing you to release them more quickly and can cancel mid-swing.
So what are the major differences? And I don't mean the minor things I've mentioned like a couple of siege weapons (which seem pointless) and firepots and whatnot.
No, that's not what I meant. Unresponsive in terms of when I input an action and there's a delay before it follows through. And it's not latency as I tried on 30ish or lower ping servers.
In Chivalry you can only cancel your swings during windup and there's a recovery period after each swing, meaning that if you make mistakes a decent player can exploit it. Movement and positioning is much more important as a result - attack while out of range and they can duck in and hit you after you miss, wait too long for them to close in and you might end up taking a hit first. Naturally this depends on the class and the weapon they're using, which are fairly well differentiated.
The classes are well differentiated in Chivalry in terms of loadout, movement speed and ability, whereas in M&B there's no reason not to go for the best armour and weapon you can get - it might slow you down but since backpedalling is useless it won't matter once you engage someone. As a result they actually play differently, instead of the rapid feint spam that constitutes the only viable melee playstyle in M&B among anyone with a basic understanding of the game.
As well as the fundamental difference in combat mechanics the game revolves around a proper objective-based game mode, with different objectives for each map. I think this is much more interesting than the deathmatch and battle gamemodes which seems to be what most servers n M&B ran.
While that sounds all well and good in theory in practice feint-spamming is pretty common in Chivalry, too, from what I've read. So usually you just end up in a standoff like CK mentioned above.
I don't disagree. And I mentioned the classes were an area that they polished/improved upon. But still, to the average player I don't think this warrants a separate purchase. To someone who would put in a hundred or more hours to a game like this, then probably so.
The objective based maps in Chivalry don't really play out any different than standard deathmatch or battles. It's essentially just a series of maps tied together versus one. I didn't notice any modes other than CTF, last man standing, raid the castle and kill X person (which M&B has... or at least I've played some modded server that has it), and time-based 'score attack' in terms of kills. Also the problem with the bigger maps/team sizes is that eventually it just turns into a cluster fuck. Sure you can avoid them but then it almost boils down to dueling and you already touched on the issues there.
To that end, reach weapons seem to be king. Ranged weapons seem essentially useless since A: archers can't hit shit (Think I got shot maybe once during my entire play), and B: if they do hit shit they do fuck-all damage. Going sword and board seems less useful then big honking two-hander since you have to get even closer to your enemies to hit which makes dancing around more difficult, and requires you focus on your target even more which means some jackass with a two-handed you didn't see will chop your head off at along range anyway as you're focusing on your single target. The jackass can of course be a friendly or an enemy, it doesn't matter.Been playing for two hours. I get that delay too. I guess it could be lag but most fights I've seen / been into degrade into the two guys dancing around each other flailing their swords, expecting one to miss a swing to stagger him with a combo. It's actually kind fun but I imagine that's because of the sheer amount of people fighting, the combat itself isn't as orgasmic as videos made me think.
To that end, reach weapons seem to be king. Ranged weapons seem essentially useless since A: archers can't hit shit (Think I got shot maybe once during my entire play), and B: if they do hit shit they do fuck-all damage. Going sword and board seems less useful then big honking two-hander since you have to get even closer to your enemies to hit which makes dancing around more difficult, and requires you focus on your target even more which means some jackass with a two-handed you didn't see will chop your head off at along range anyway as you're focusing on your single target.
The faster swing speed of one handed weapons also gave them an additional benefit in M&B since you could spaz out easier if you get up close, and in M&B it's possible you can't swing a weapon if you don't have room, so in a crushed up close range fight a shorter weapon has an advantage.